[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Tue Aug 21 14:09:04 UTC 2018
Dear Maureen,
what is a "legitimate operation" for you? Online marketing is legitimate
for some whilst others call it spam.
Investing into a domain portfolio is legitimate for some whilst for
others it is a heresy.
Speaking out against a government or a rogue company is considered
legitimate by some whilst for others it has to be stamped down.
Oh -- and ICANN does not do content regulation.
So how are we going to be able to articulate this?
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 21/08/2018 14:33, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
> So perhaps some criteria that clarifies a legitimate operation in an
> "underserved region" might be needed?
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:57 AM, Alexander Schubert
> <alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Please have an eye on "potential abuse". While aiding "underserved
> areas" in and of itself is a noble course - please always factor
> in that this might get abused by tricksters.
>
> In the case of locally owned and operated geo-applicants for local
> geo-names: that's a good idea. But:
>
> There is precedence that "portfolio applicants" are utilizing
> offshore legal entities as applicant vehicles. So we can't simply
> offer "incentives" (e.g. reduced application fees; or applicant
> support) to entities based in certain jurisdictions per se.
>
> We had limited "abuse" in the 2012 round - because back then
> virtually nobody outside the inner ICANN circles was aware about
> the opportunity - and nobody imagined the fortunes that could be
> made (and in many cases WHERE made). This will radically change in
> 3 years when the 2nd round launches. People will examine the
> fringe cases in the 2012 round - and create clever schemes to
> "make money fast".
>
> So the question: How exactly do we make sure that an application
> is a genuine "underserved area" operation? Just because they have
> a legal entity registered there, and rent a cheap shared office
> space and have two employees (for $US 150 each per month) sitting
> there staring holes into the wall?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>] On Behalf Of
> Maureen Hilyard
> Sent: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 02:34
> To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com
> <mailto:roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>>
> Cc: Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net
> <mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net>>; CPWG <cpwg at icann.org
> <mailto:cpwg at icann.org>>; Christopher Wilkinson
> <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>>;
> Vanda Scartezini <vanda.scartezini at gmail.com
> <mailto:vanda.scartezini at gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent
> Procedures
>
> I agree Roberto about the differences in "underserved" areas.
> Because they are on the outside edge of the circle of developed
> and even developing countries, there are specific reasons for
> their "underserved-ness" which makes them different from each other..
>
> When it comes to the next round, I agree that each underserved
> region should really come up with a business plan of its own in
> relation to how it can make pertinent use of any new gTLDs.
>
> I look at my own region and we need to put a lot more effort into
> our ISOC chapter and our Pacific ALSes to help them understand
> what we are talking about when we mention new gTLDs and other
> internet governance issues that they need to know about if our
> region is to make more meaningful and productive use of the Internet.
>
> So little time and so much to do...
>
> M
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Roberto Gaetano <
> roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com <mailto:roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > Maureen and Vanda,
> > I think that we all have ideas about how to address some issues
> that
> > are related to the fact that there are some underserved (so far)
> > geopolitical regions. As a matter of fact, if we do a thorough
> > analysis the “underserved” areas are not only geopolitical, but
> also of different kind.
> > The question is whether the next round does have as objective to
> > address in priority these areas, or whether is only based on
> > maximisation of the profit.
> > I remember a similar discussion 20+ years ago, when I was
> working at
> > ETSI, about the coverage of the GMS in Africa. The answer I got
> back
> > then is that “there is no business case in Africa”. Seen in
> 2018, this
> > position is ridiculous, but aren’t we reproducing the same cultural
> > pattern today with TLDs?
> > Cheers,
> > Roberto
> >
> >
> >
> > On 08.08.2018, at 19:13, Maureen Hilyard
> <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > So - the point here is just one: MAKE HUGE PROMOTION IN SOUTH
> > HEMISPHERE
> >
> > And focus on making a splash in the Pacific region as well..
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Vanda Scartezini <
> > vanda.scartezini at gmail.com <mailto:vanda.scartezini at gmail.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Some comments on Christopher points
> >
> > a) Community Priority Evaluations
> > what was relevant during 2012 was the fact that all the effort
> asked
> > for community to prove support ( ltos of money to do this around
> the
> > world ) was ignored during the analysis period and several
> community (
> > I have promoted few) faced auction though their competitors had no
> > prove of community interest.
> > Then, if we will impose some demands to community we need to
> make sure
> > those items will be considered and none without similar
> qualifications
> > will be compete with them.
> >
> > b)metrics
> > Metrics for end users are security, respect to privacy and "
> continuity".
> > If organization has no capacity to support initial investment so it
> > will fail in a couple years and all registrant had done to
> promote the
> > new domain will be waste of money.
> >
> > I have been promoting here 2012 round. But it was this, myself
> talking
> > with several organizations to enter. We had a reasonable success
> but
> > the reality was there was NO PROMOTION of 2012 round in the
> South Hemisphere.
> > Nothing in digital news in local languages. ICANN came one day
> to Sao
> > Paulo Brazil and I asked people to join - we got 50 attendees .
> We had
> > 8 ( from
> > 11 applied in Brazil) that attended this meeting . Nothing else
> was
> > done in South America.
> > When I have done a survey in 2015 talking with big companies around
> > South America I found just 1 that said they have no intention to
> apply
> > if there was another round, all others responded YES, they had
> > interest, please alert us, if there will be another round.
> > So - the point here is just one: MAKE HUGE PROMOTION IN SOUTH
> > HEMISPHERE
> >
> > Vanda Scartezini
> > Polo Consultores Associados
> > Av. Paulista 1159
> >
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Paulista+1159&entry=gmail&source=g
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Paulista+1159&entry=gmail&source=g>>,
> > cj
> > 1004
> > 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
> > Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
> > Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
> > Sorry for any typos.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/8/18, 07:49, "GTLD-WG on behalf of wilkinson christopher" <
> > gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of
> > cw at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Good afternoon:
> >
> > I generally concur with Holly's priorities in addition to my
> > questions regarding Competition and Jurisdiction.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > CW
> >
> >
> > El 8 de agosto de 2018 a las 7:09 Holly Raiche <
> >
> > h.raiche at internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net>>
> escribió:
> >
> >
> >
> > Folks
> >
> > Having gone through the Report and Appendix C, the issues that ALAC
> >
> > has been concerned with before and - I am suggesting - should
> > concentrate on in its response include:
> >
> >
> > Community Priority Evaluations
> > These applicants had priority, but the definition was narrow and few
> >
> > applications made it through on this. The definition needs to be
> > revisited, and the evaluation more transparent and predictable- and
> > finalised BEFORE evaluation
> >
> >
> > Metrics
> > Unde the general heading, the question is asked whether there should
> >
> > be success metrics. We said - and I believe should continue to
> say -
> > have metrics as to what success looks like from an ALAC perspective.
> >
> >
> > PICS
> > Under global public interest, the question is asked whether there
> >
> > should continue to be PICS. They are there because we argued
> for them
> > - and still should
> >
> >
> > Applications from outside the US/Europe We expressed concern
> that most
> > of the applications came from the US
> >
> > and, to a lesser extent, Europe. We said this came down to a
> number
> > of factors, including
> >
> > Length and complexity of Applicant Guidebook - it should be more
> >
> > accessible, comprehensible, in different languages
> >
> > Need for applicant support - maybe a dedicated round for developing
> >
> > countries
> >
> > Possibility of variable fees
> > IDNs
> > The report mentions need for further work to be done on Universal
> >
> > Acceptance
> >
> >
> >
> > Happy to discuss
> >
> > Holly
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CPWG mailing list
> > CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
> > _______________________________________________
> > registration-issues-wg mailing list
> > registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CPWG mailing list
> > CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
> > _______________________________________________
> > GTLD-WG mailing list
> > GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>
> >
> > Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/
> > display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
> > _______________________________________________
> > CPWG mailing list
> > CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CPWG mailing list
> > CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
> > _______________________________________________
> > GTLD-WG mailing list
> > GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>
> >
> > Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.
> > org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180821/7c282b37/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list